1 / 3

DIFFERENCES IN MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING KNEELING WITH AND WITHOUT KNEELING MAT

DIFFERENCES IN MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING KNEELING WITH AND WITHOUT KNEELING MAT. Daniel Lomo-Tettey, Dr. Campbell-Kyureghyan Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering College of Engineering and Applied Science. Motivation

abedi
Télécharger la présentation

DIFFERENCES IN MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING KNEELING WITH AND WITHOUT KNEELING MAT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DIFFERENCES IN MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING KNEELING WITH AND WITHOUT KNEELING MAT Daniel Lomo-Tettey, Dr. Campbell-Kyureghyan Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering College of Engineering and Applied Science • Motivation • Many daily occupational tasks in construction, utilities, mining and other industries involve frequent and/or prolonged kneeling. • Kneeling mats or knee pads are usually recommended for tasks that involve kneeling. • However, the effectiveness of kneeling mats/pads has not been explored in depth. • Goal • To evaluate muscle activity during static kneeling on both legs at 90° of knee flexion in two experimental conditions: with and without a kneeling mat. • It is hypothesized that kneeling on the kneeling mat will reduce muscle activity in comparison to the condition without a kneeling mat.

  2. Method Figure 1: A subject kneeling on both knees at 90 of knee flexion with kneeling mat. Subjects (8) Kneeling task (Fig. 1). Randomized control trial Recorded surface electromyography (sEMG) signals (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Acquired sEMG signals at 2000Hz, filtered (4th order Butterworth band-pass filter, corner frequencies 20-500Hz) Calculated root mean square (RMS) amplitudes with 0.125s window size and 0.0625s overlap; normalized to the RMS value of the first minute of kneeling Calculated %difference in nRMS between kneeling mat and no kneeling mat conditions Applied paired t-test with 95% CI, statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Bilateral RA Bilateral ES **This research was approved by UWM Institutional Review Board (Protocol #13.321-UWM) ** Unilateral: SEM RF VL VM BF MG LG TA Figure 2: sEMG electrodes placed on a subject’s leg and torso muscles (posterior view). Figure 3: sEMG electrodes placed on a subject’s leg and torso muscles (anterior view).

  3. Results/Conclusion • Results: • Difference between kneeling mat and no kneeling mat conditions were significant for BF (38%, p = 0.000), SEM (14%, p = 0.002), LG (9%, p = 0.006), VL (13%, p = 0.001), RRA (16%, p = 0.000), RES (30%, p = 0.008) and LES (35%, p = 0.000) (Fig. 4 - poster). • Differences in VM, MG, TA and LRA • were no statistically significant. • Explanation: The role of agonist and • antagonist knee and low-back flexors • and extensors in reducing knee • joints loading. • Discussion/Conclusion: • Reduction in muscle activity with the • kneeling mat emphasizes the importance • of cushioning the knee joints and the • flexibility of adjusting lateral and sagittal • body position during kneeling. • This finding is an important step in determining potential interventions to minimize the effects of kneeling. References: (1). Gallagher, S., et al. (2009). Journal of safety research 40, 233-237; (2). Perry, J. D., et al. (1975). Journal of bone and joint surgery 57, 961-967; (3). Porter, W. L., et al. (2010). Applied ergonomics 42, 106-113

More Related